Literacy With Attitude

 Patrick Finn writes a condemning piece in "Literacy With Attitude", as he looks at the style of teaching we give different economic classes in the United States of America. He takes the position that, depending on your economic class, you are either taught "Empowering Literacy" or "Functional Literacy". Empowering Literacy tends to lead to positions of authority and leadership. It encompasses not just the rules, but the reasons and the history and the connections to real life situations. Functional Literacy is about domestication; being productive but not troublesome. It encourages obedience and rules, but not questions and creativity. Finn claims that literacy is being taught in ways that limit students based on their social and economic class. If you are in a poor school, you are being taught what you need to know to live, but not lead.

Finn draws off the studies of Jean Anyon, who studied 5th Grade classes in 5 public elementary schools from different economic situations. She looked at what was taught, how it was taught, as well as the language and attitudes of teachers in those schools. She noticed pronounced differences in the way students were taught, and labeled schools with themes to sum up the experience. In the poorest schools, the theme was Resistance. Resistance to learning, education, rules, teachers, even opportunity. In response to that resistance, the teachers were dictatorial and focused on a product, not on understanding. At the other end of the spectrum was Excellence. Students coveted, sought out and expected excellence.  Teachers encouraged creativity, exploration and independence. A pdf of Anyon's study can be found here

As a teacher I have experienced the shock of culture difference when adjusting to a new school. I taught at a school that would fit nicely into Anyon's category of "possibility". Students had at least one working parent, but would be middle class for the majority. These students saw possibility in education, and for the most part accepted the rules and traditions of the schooling experience. We may have trended towards the Individualism/Humanitarianism category, but teaching methods were quite rule based and traditional. As I transitioned from that experience to my current school I received the shock of my life. I found myself in a teaching situation that reeked of resistance. I had to rethink all my teaching strategies because what worked in my previous situation did not work in my new situation. When reading this article about teachers saying the kids "can't handle" group work, I thought they were quoting me. Interestingly, those same students, 3 years later, have stopped resisting and are open to the possibility of what I have to teach. Their social and economic status' have probably not changed, but we have built relationships and shared experiences over the years. I have become a steady fixture in their lives and instead of resisting they now choose to participate. Because of this I have been open to less rigid lessons which allow more freedom of expression and creativity. We have a sense of shared expectations and trust now. So is it a student's low economic status that leads to educational resistance? Or the lack of trusted relationships? Why are they intertwined? I certainly never told my students to "shut up" or doubted their intelligence as reported in the study, but I did realize that I had to teach them social skills before music skills. Mutually we had to learn to trust each other before we could learn from each other. This article made me revisit that transition and view it will new eyes. Your teaching style will always change based on the needs of your students, but should their economic status guide your classroom? I would hope not.